Class Two:
The Early 60s: Kennedy goes from Crisis to Crisis and Finds his Footing (1962)
Background Programs and Videos
James Meredith’s attempt to integrate the University of Mississippi, September 30, 1962. WATCH
Cuban Missile Crisis, Universal News Report from October 25, 1962: WATCH
JFK Reflects with White House Correspondents on First Two Years
Speeches
JFK’s Moon Speech at Rice University September 12,1962
After the bad first year in office Kennedy had had with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, followed by a failed summit meeting with Khrushchev, the erection of the Berlin Wall, and violent reactions to peaceful civil rights demonstrations, Kennedy needed something uplifting to get himself and the nation out of the doldrums. And landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade was one heck of a promise to make in 1962 considering that the United States was behind the Russians in the space race.
Several things to note about this speech: once again, how well Sorensen captures JFK’s “voice” (rhythm and cadence) as well as his thoughts. This is demonstrated by how forcefully and convincingly Kennedy can deliver the speech even though he is reading from a text. (Note that he departs and seems to ad-lib at the end, but it is still the same voice.) Second, the ability of the speaker and speechwriter to know and respond to what is on the audience’s minds; for example, how much will this cost, how can we do this given that we are behind, and what’s in it for us (Rice, Houston, Texas, America)?
Third, Kennedy knows he is asking for something almost impossible. Not only does he appeal to their pride, but also to the cold war reality and fear that if we don’t get to the Moon first, the Russians will. He contends we will do it in peace; they will do it for military advantage. That’s a scary proposition.
Finally, note how inspirational the speech is both in words and delivery. This man feels what he is saying. By the end of the speech, he has inspired himself. He gets carried away, clapping his hands to emphasize a point, and departs from the script. His confidence is contagious. That’s what makes the speech so effective. Great leaders can do this because they believe so strongly in what they are saying. Lincoln. Churchill. King. All of them inspired with their words, but the belief in what they were saying came first.
Kennedy’s condensing of recorded history into 50 years might be appropriate for a largely scientific community like the one is speaking to at Rice. After all, he is trying to highlight the remarkable advances made in recent years and by doing so implies that we can do even bigger things in this decade. But, as a layman, I found it a little tedious. It only takes about a minute and a half to go through these major accomplishments, but it seems longer to my twenty-first-century ears.
But I like how the President’s sense of humor comes through several times in his “asides.” They help endear him to the audience. They also probably soften resistance and make the speech’s bold promise of reaching the moon in such a short time frame even more palatable. He reaches out to connect with this audience because these scientists and engineers are the ones who are going to have to deliver on this promise.
I never noticed it before, but it’s one of those little synchronicities of history that two years to the day he made his speech to the Houston ministers, he’s back in Houston giving a major speech.
Kennedy’s Address on the Situation at the University of Mississippi, September 30, 1962: WATCH
Text of Kennedy’s Meredith Speech: READ
Civil rights were not one of Kennedy’s priorities because it was such a hot political issue and he needed Southern votes in Congress to pass any of his legislative agenda. But the white violence against Meredith demanded a response. To explain the actions he was taking to protect Mr. Meredith and to carry out the orders of the courts, Kennedy addresses the nation from the Oval Office.
The setting of a speech is important. When a president has to take action or inform the nation about something that he alone should announce, he speaks from the White House and usually the Oval Office. It’s his seat of power. It adds to his aura of authority and his credibility.
This is another persuasive speech. JFK is trying to get the university (administration and student body) to stand down and let Mr. Meredith enroll in accordance with the various courts’ orders. He makes a rational appeal by citing his responsibility to execute the courts’ orders. Integration is the law. But he also knows that reason alone isn’t going to get people to willingly respond to what he is asking. He makes an emotional appeal to their honor as southern gentlemen as well as their patriotism and their pride. He lauds the accomplishments of the state and the university and commends the valor of Mississippians in various wars. To help make this appeal credible, he notes that the judges on the appellate court are all southerners and that other southern states have peacefully integrated their universities. The implication: what’s wrong with Mississippi? Why can’t you?
I always thought this speech was a “one-off,” Kennedy facing a unique situation that he had to address with a national speech. Not at all. Compare it with Eisenhower’s Little Rock Speech on September 24, 1957, in which his predecessor had to explain the decision to send troops into Little Rock to protect the nine students trying to integrate Central High School. JFK seems to have used it as a template for his speech, even at times paraphrasing some of the things that Eisenhower said; e.g., the need to observe and obey the law even when you disagree with it. Each president is acting as “explainer in chief” (a term coined by President Obama to characterize former President Bill Clinton). Note how important the setting of the Oval Office is for the president in this speech. He makes a point of it at the beginning. It carries weight. As we saw earlier, visuals/optics are important. Note Ike’s “aside” in the middle of the speech. To emphasize it, he takes his glasses off. (Compare this gesture with the ending of his Farewell Address.) Ike emphasizes his personal connection/empathy with the South and Little Rock in particular. Like Kennedy, he recognizes and honors the local citizens’ sacrifices in war. But he also says that what they are doing is smearing the reputation of this country. Again, the Cold War is always in the background.
Kennedy’s speech is shorter and much more pleasing to the ear than Eisenhower’s—a reflection of the different men presenting them (and their speaking style) and those who wrote the speeches. In essence, though they are communicating the same message—the federal government has had to step in because the local governments have not done their job to protect their citizens and enforce the law.
And both presidents add additional weight to their arguments by quoting or alluding to American ideals. Eisenhower by quoting part of the Pledge of Allegiance and Kennedy by using the phrase “healing the wounds” which alludes to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.
For a speechwriter to get hold of an actual speaking text is a bit like throwing a dinosaur bone to a paleontologist. You not only get to appreciate how the speech is formatted to make it easier to deliver, but you occasionally get glimpses of the hand of the speaker. Take a look at the typewritten pages and you can see the last-minute changes that Kennedy made.
JFK’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech on October 22, 1962 (begin at 00:00:39)
Given the stakes, this was perhaps the most important speech of the 60s—or any other time for that matter. It was a president standing up to a bully and seeking a way to bring the world back from the edge of nuclear holocaust.
Until this point in his presidency, Kennedy had done a poor job of confronting both Khrushchev and his own military leaders. At their first meeting five months into his term (the Vienna Summit), the un-charismatic, but effective leader of the Soviet Union had put the young president back on his heels. There was no way that the communist leader was going to pay attention to anything the young president had to say. Kennedy came away telling one of his advisors that this was one of the worst experiences of his life. Likewise, Kennedy deferred to his military leaders when it came to going ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He trusted their prediction that an invasion would touch off a revolt against Castro. (Sounds like American thinking in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, doesn’t it?) But the planning and the intelligence was faulty. And it resulted in a major black eye for Kennedy— especially with the exile community in Florida.
But by the time the Soviets had put missiles into Cuba and the U-2 flights had confirmed them, Kennedy was able to stand up to the military brass and counter their recommendations to attack Cuba and destroy the missiles without first trying a less-risky approach. The speech on October 22 outlines what the president is proposing. It’s very carefully worded. It is calculated to lower the heat rather than raise it as both nations seem to be on the precipice of war. Once again, he cites his obligations to the Constitution (to defend the country), but at the same time acknowledges that he and Khrushchev have an obligation to the world not to set off a war that no one can win because the weapons are so terrible.
The primary audience of the speech is the American people. But he is also speaking to the world, and specifically to Khrushchev and his nation and the Cuban people who would probably be the first to suffer if there was an attack. As part of his rational appeal, he cites the irrefutable photographic evidence of the missiles and the treaties/charter commitments that support his actions. Kennedy’s case is strengthened by his citing the Russian’s own words as proof of their deception and lack of credibility. He is also very clear that if what he has proposed doesn’t work, there are other, more serious alternatives. He strikes me as someone competent and concerned, deliberate and reasonable. He has become a leader who comes across as very credible.
I think the speech put Khrushchev in the position of being the man responsible for a nuclear war if he doesn’t go along with what the American president is proposing. The result is that the Soviets took the olive branch that was extended, respected the quarantine, and agreed ultimately to remove all of the weapons from Cuba. Eventually, in a side agreement, the US took its missiles out of Turkey. Both countries began anew the process of negotiating test ban treaties as a way to reduce the threat of nuclear war.
Despite being a very serious speech, it is not without some of the beautiful, sonorous language found in other JFK speeches. For example, the powerful image “where the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth” and the concluding antithesis “Our goal is not the victory of might, but vindication of right…not peace at the expense of freedom. But peace and freedom…” There is no question that this is a Kennedy-Sorensen speech.
It’s impossible to say that the speech prevented a nuclear war. There was still a lot of serious negotiating that had to take place to prevent a catastrophe. But the speech, because it articulated so well the seriousness of the situation and the dedication of the American government to try to prevent a war, certainly played a role in getting the Soviets to recognize the hazards of the situation. When the first Russian ships reached the Navy quarantine and turned around without any shots being fired, Secretary of State Dean Rusk is quoted as saying “We’re eyeball to eyeball and I think the other guy just blinked.” Better a blink than a bomb.One final observation: It is interesting to compare this speech with the reasonable and patient tone of our “Declaration of Independence”—another explanation for serious actions being taken and trying to reason with, rather than further provoke, the opponent while making our case to the world.
Buck Benedict 